Neves v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

6 Citing cases

  1. Rodin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    1:21-cv-00900-SAB (E.D. Cal. May. 4, 2023)   Cited 16 times

    See Juniel v. Saul, No. 1:20-CV-0421 JLT, 2021 WL 2349878, at *10 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2021) (in applying specific and legitimate standard under previous regulations, finding “only the statements from Dr. Bedi that Plaintiff was ‘very limited in his ability to perform an occupation due to these disorders' and his ‘debilitation [was] permanent' may be rejected as ultimate conclusions reserved for the Commissioner” (quoting Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (“To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated.”) (emphasis in original)))

  2. Lail v. Kijakazi

    1:20-cv-1349 JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2021)

    Importantly, an ALJ may not reject work-related limitations simply on the grounds that a source also addressed the ultimate issue. As this Court previously explained, “To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated.” Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the ALJ erred in rejecting the functional limitations identified by Ms. Sosa on these grounds.

  3. Juniel v. Saul

    Case No.: 1:20-cv-0421 JLT (E.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2021)   Cited 13 times

    As this Court previously explained, “To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated.” Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). c. Treatment relationship

  4. Kendall v. Saul

    Case No. 1:19-cv-01485-SKO (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2021)   Cited 7 times

    It is therefore not accorded the weight of a medical opinion"). "To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated." Neves v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-cv-01194-EPG, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, an ALJ may discredit treating physicians' opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings. Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004).

  5. Sutter v. Saul

    Case No.: 1:19-cv-1044 JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2020)

    As this Court previously explained, "To be very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated." Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original). c. Treatment relationship

  6. Whipple v. Berryhill

    Case No.: 1:16-cv-01254 - JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Observing that the Appeals Council did not reject a medical opinion that indicated that the plaintiff had limitations before the ALJ's decision, even though the opinion postdated the ALJ's decision

    This is not a specific, legitimate reason for rejecting the limitations identified by Dr. WebbKummer. As this Court previously explained, "Tobe very clear, rejecting the ultimate conclusion concerning disability and rejecting findings concerning work-related limitations are two vastly different propositions that should not be conflated." Neves v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2017 WL 1079754 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (emphasis in original) Significantly, Dr. WebbKummer indicated Plaintiff walked with an "antalgic gait / unstable gait," and could stand and/or walk for only 5 minutes at one time and 30 minutes total in an eight-hour day. (Doc. 12-25 at 25) Thus, she believed that—contrary to the ALJ's findings—Plaintiff was not able to perform the exertional requirements of light work, which generally "requires a good deal of standing or walking."